In an email to members seen by ifa, FPA chair Neil Kendall said the current proposal “does not appropriately recognise” advisers who have voluntarily completed, or are currently undertaking, further education.
“This includes those who have obtained an Advanced Diploma of Financial Planning or completed the education component of the CFP Certification Program,” Mr Kendall said.
“The FPA will be firmly advocating for recognition of these for degree-qualified financial planners.”
Specifically, Mr Kendall said the FPA would push to have the CFP recognised as an alternate entry point to the bridging course options outlined in FASEA’s guidance update, released by the government agency last month.
“We acknowledge that the proposal does suggest recognised prior learning will be given to this type of study, however we will be advocating for the CFP Certification Program and other financial planning study to be considered as a pathway for entry into the bridging course option for degree-qualified financial planners,” Mr Kendall said.
Last week, the FPA released a statement arguing for greater recognition of prior learning under FASEA’s updated guidance, however the statement did not include reference to the CFP.
Prior to the release of the FASEA guidance update, Mr Kendall told ifa that the CFP program would “almost 100 per cent” be considered as a bridging course under the FASEA framework.
The subsequent guidance update did not, however, mention professional designations such as the CFP.
I realise this is a very late comment.. but reading through the abundance of press on the failures of the FPA and the false promotion of the CFP Course as a pinnacle in education and standards for financial planning must surely leave the door open for a class action against the FPA. We have all wasted so much money and time on something that has now been shown for what it is… worthless.
What a disappointing scenario for those that have put in & gone the extra mile with their studies. What’s equally disappointing is the commentary by my peers above.
Our industry is at one hell of a cross-roads. Petty bickering will not help anyone & worse probably makes the regulator & the FASEA board look at our industry & think ‘stuff them all.’ If we as an industry of professionals fail to come together & work for the greater good then we only invite further meddling from government bureaucracies & regulation.
Red-tape is killing our time spent serving clients. Why are we inviting more?
It’s time to put our petty differences aside & support each other / anyone that supports their clients.
if you have a degree in the related areas, why dont you join the CPA Australia and CAANZ. What is the point of joining FPA all they do is merely financial planning. Financial planning is always part of CPA Australia and CAANZ areas anyway. Why make a big fuss out of the CFP designation.
Sorry Peter, but blindly recommending inappropriate SMSFs and negatively geared property to clients so that you can generate more fee income for your practice is not financial planning.
recommending SMSF and negative gearing strategies are only a small part of an professional accountants do. Professional accountants are able to provide clients with professional services much more than merely financial planning. Only certain professionals are allowed to certify documents, CPAA and CAANZ are ones of those. No offence, but anyone can be a financial planner.
true, for the moment. But these changes will bring that to an end. Welcome in my book.
good idea.
The reality is that they must push for more recognition, otherwise why would anyone keep their CFP designation post FASEA. The lack of recognition has proven CFP to be unvalued in the corporate world. Without the CFP one would wonder how the FPA would continue?
try and tell people anywhere what a cfp is they will laugh at your face, enough said
totally agree
So true Anon. The CFP course actually makes up 1/3 of the FPA’s income, with the rest from the FPA conference and membership fees (included are payments from product manufacturers). Given CFP is now worthless that’s a massive loss of income for the FPA plus add in all those who will be either leaving or downgrading their membership status to associate at $500 a year versus $1,000 and the FPA is in some serious financial difficulties.
It was valued until FASEA came along. Particularly with the large institutions (Big 4, industry funds) they preferred to employ CFP-accredited advisers.
Up to 12-18 months ago, many major institutions/employers and a key professional body (FPA) endorsed the CFP as a ‘mark of quality’. You needed to have completed it, or be enrolled in it, to be employed in many cases. So if I am an adviser who wants to remain employable and have this ‘mark of quality’ I pay and do the CFP course, spend the time on it, away from family and work, and get told it is ‘Masters-equivalent’.
And now FASEA ignore it altogether. Seriously, WTF. How can we take our ‘profession’ seriously?
PS. Re: institutions, while most of us would like to run our own book/business, not always possible.
Firstly advisers I’m talking to have no intention of renewing their FPA membership fees.The FPA clearly has it’s own agenda and is now dominated by large banks. This is demonstrated by how out of touch the FPA are with it’s members and it’s 100 point submission which claimed the CFP program should be worth 14 points out of 100 and also the work CPA Australia has already achieved.
Secondly, It’s professional partner program clearly states “membership dictates the direction of advice in Australia.” The banks forced their staff to become members during the CFP banking scandal and now pays for their membership fees. If recognizing CFP accreditation program is therefore the opinion of the FPA then when you consider the number of victims of poor advice via the banks and recently ANZ then surely the FPA accreditation program should be worthless. If that counts then why not my 1 hour webinar I did this morning? I have expressed this to FASEA and stated that the opinions of the FPA are flawed due to the professional partner program and this relationship, that their business partners are firms that take bribes and are currently under going a Royal Commission. Why not get the opinion of Storm Financial and get their internal training program listed as well…whilst we’re asking?
I disagree. To be a CPA or CA you need to have already done the pre-requisite qualification. CFP is a certification only. As long as the study completed to obtain the CFP in the first place align with the new FASEA proposals around education then fine, otherwise it is a circular argument.
Agree and makes perfect sense.
To enter/complete the CFP course you also need pre-requisite qualifications and experience.
Grandfathered CFPs a different matter of course.
The CFP Designation is a certification only. The CFP Course is a different thing. For the last 10 years or so, the CFP Course, on top of an undergraduate degree, entry level financial planning training, and 3 years practical experience, have been prerequisites for CFP Certification. Much the same model as CA and CPA.
Yes there are some people with CFP Designation who were ushered through without these prerequisites in the shameful “grandfathering” process. But that process ended some time ago and the FPA is not asking for those people to be given FASEA recognition.
The study completed to obtain a (non grandfathered) CFP Designation is totally aligned with the FASEA legislation. Thousands of planners have completed this already. For the FASEA board and CEO to force these people to pay for additional courses at other institutions reeks of bias and conflict.
Couldn’t an FPEC member University accredit the CFP course under AQF and if so why haven’t they?
Good question. Because it will cannibalise the course demand FASEA is about to artificially create.
Why get 100% accreditation for the CFP course, when you leave it unaccredited, so that there will be a whole lot of demand for existing CFPs to complete the FASEA-approved Grad Dips? (Even where what they have studied is 90-100% equivalent to the Grad Dip).
At best most tertiary education providers will only recognise previous learning at a maximum 50% of course units (even where what was actually completed is considerably higher). It also creates arbitrage between institutions (i.e. one recognises 1 unit as previous learning, while another recognises 3-4), which makes a mockery of the FASEA process.
Though once the latent demand is out of the way, nothing to stop tertiary education providers ‘reviving’ the CFP under the conditions you’ve just described (for new members of course).
why didn’t the FPA, think of getting their -world’s no 1, best in the world course endorsed by Dazza their advertising icon- AQF rated in the first place ?
Why don’t they now?
Exactly. You have pinpointed why education providers on the FASEA board have an untenable conflict of interest. You have also highlighted why FASEA is so keen to discredit the CFP Course. It’s where the big money is if everyone who has done it is forced to pay up again.
As things stand they may very well kill the golden goose. We can run our own numbers and if it does not stack up, I’m sure as hell looking at alternatives to being a planner. I took the punt on being professional early on with the CFP course, and now I’m on the verge of being screwed over. There’s only so many times one can afford time away from work and family – it’s got to be worth it.
With Millennials soon to become the main demographic, (in between a major market correction no doubt) there are a host of other changes we will need to be on top of. I’m not convinced repeating study for what I already know to keep FASEA happy is value for money. It’s not.
The whole thing about professionalism is that it is about building ‘trust’ between clients and their advisers. Well this goes all the way up the line.
*Lead by example.*
I did the Storm Financial Planning course. It was a tough course on Gearing. Dear FASEA I’d like that course too, to count towards what a degree means. Mr Cassmattis ( an honest person like Dante) told me it’s the peak planning course in Australia at the time. I guess if the FPA and it’s key business partners like ANZ and NAB are being accused of taking bribes and before a Royal commission than equating my Stormified course with the CFP program is the very same thing. Hell even the initials CFP are named after Commonwealth Financial Planning.That’s why if you want to do a proper course you go to a Uni and if you don’t you buy privately run courses and run the risk they count for Zip.
The CFP Course that FASEA refuses to credit was run by Deakin. Yet FASEA is quite willing to give credit for “proper” courses run by the likes of Kaplan, and various “universities” which were created overnight by renaming old TAFE colleges?
how many credits does a CFP course get into the graduate diploma from Deakin?
I think I can answer that one for you Papa for those who don’t know…the entire course gets you just one little old exemption.
4 credits
Even though CFP is a 5 unit course. Run by Deakin!
Adrian, I know you will try and hide behind your bureaucratic rules about “no more than half”. But do you have a [b]common sense[/b][i][/i] explanation as to why CFP Course graduates will be short changed 1 unit if they do a Grad Dip?
And according to Sanders, experienced planners could get 4 units exemption from a Grad Dip anyway, without even an undergraduate degree!
According to Deakins website Adrian. It states 1 when you using your online calculator. Was it not just 1 prior to FASEA?
FPA has no credibility left to seek recognition for one of its courses
Neil–actions speak louder than words- start earning some respect and get on with the job. The current feedback must indicate FPA submissions must be loud, clear and strong to both FASEA and the minister to avoid unintended consequences.
We need the CFP to be equivalent to the current entry requirement , no more no less . Get on with it , thats what all CFP want . no need for a survey !!!! Then again an ethics course looks good on paper ,costs a fortune and means nothing to those that want to high jack the System !!!!